We describe ConvMemory v2, an opt-in token-evidence reranker that sits after the lightweight ConvMemory v1 reranker and reorders only v1's protected top-10 candidate set. v2 is a fine-tuned ms-marco-MiniLM-L-6-v2 cross-encoder (22,713,601 parameters, measured from the released checkpoint) applied to the ten (query, memory) pairs that v1 has already selected; it does not change which ten memories are returned, so Recall@10 and Hit@10 are identical to v1 by construction, not by statistical coincidence. On the LoCoMo conversational memory benchmark (5 seeds, n = 4955 test rows), v2 raises FULL MRR from v1's 0.5824 to 0.6560 (paired bootstrap +0.0734, 95% CI [+0.0645, +0.0827]) and H@1 from 0.4440 to 0.5474. v2 closes most but not all of the gap to a much more expensive full-pool cross-encoder reference (mxbai-rerank-large-v1 over the top-500, MRR 0.6688): on FULL MRR v2 sits 0.013 below mxbai_top500, but on two raw-dense-hard slices (where v1's protected top-10 has higher recall than mxbai's own top-10) v2 exceeds mxbai_top500. A four-arm load-bearing ablation shows candidate-specific memory text is the mechanism: removing, shuffling, or replacing it collapses MRR below raw dense retrieval. v2 is best understood as a standard recall-preserving cascade pattern with LoCoMo-specific fine-tuning, an explicit anti-shortcut inference contract, and disciplined load-bearing analysis; its advantage over mxbai is slice-specific rather than a general dominance claim. This report extends the v1 technical report (arXiv:2605.28062).
Retrieving the few past turns that answer a new query across long multi-session histories is the retrieval bottleneck behind long-term conversational memory (LoCoMo, LongMemEval). Recent concurrent work, Nano-Memory, shows that scoring a session by the maximum query-turn similarity (late interaction, "Turn Isolation Retrieval") beats mean-pooled session embeddings. We do not claim that effect; we replicate it and ask what a training-free, CPU-only retrieval stage should add around it. We report four findings. (1) Fuse: score-level fusion of the late-interaction dense score with BM25, under a single leave-one-conversation-out weight, adds +8.8 to +17.2 points of LoCoMo Hit@1 over late interaction alone across six encoders (all p<1e-4), reaching Hit@1 0.752 / NDCG@5 0.829 (e5-large-v2), +11.2 pp over BM25. (2) An off-the-shelf web-search cross-encoder reranker over the fused top-10 hurts here, degrading Hit@1 by 6.9 pp (one reranker, one configuration). (3) A pooling-operator ablation shows top-k late interaction matches max-similarity, but a naive smooth-max (log-sum-exp) collapses for half the encoders. (4) The late-minus-early gap is large for all six encoders and tends to be larger for larger ones, while the marginal fusion gain shrinks; on LongMemEval-S, a lexical regime where BM25 saturates, the net fusion gain over BM25 is small and not significant. A per-category analysis frames the gain as a division of labor: dense late interaction helps most on multi-hop and temporal questions but trails BM25 on adversarial ones. The contribution is a controlled, reproducible account of a strong training-free retrieval recipe, not the late-interaction retriever itself (Nano-Memory's). We make no claim to a complete memory architecture; this is a retrieval-stage study.